The Frank family was first sent to Westerbork, which was one of those transit camps you guys are so hot on. Trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, although in previous years some went to Sobibor.By the time the Franks were sent to Belsen, it had been taken over by the SS-WVHA, so workers were sent there.You're wrong. Admit it.

Nothing to admit, except to say you are logically challenged. The administration was taken over by the WVHA, but no war materials were produced there. None.And how does Anne Frank, sick with typhus, work at Belsen anyway?

Westerbork is irrelevant, she was still sent to Auschwitz and then to Bergen-Belsen.

And I note you dodged the fact that she was curiously transported all the way to Auschwitz first, obviously deemed unable to work otherwise they would have put her to work, and then transited out of Auschwitz. You must think the Germans were just sending Anne Frank on a purposeless, all expenses paid trip to Auschwitz, but then said 'oh, what heck', let's send her back to Belsen just for laughs'.

No amount of spin can change your lack of logic.

I also note you dodged the forgeries exposed in here so called 'diary'.

Your position falls apart for multiple reasons.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

Nothing to admit, except to say you are logically challenged. The administration was taken over by the WVHA, but no war materials were produced there. None.

Do yourself a favor and Google "Schuhkommando."

And how does Anne Frank, sick with typhus, work at Belsen anyway?

If she wasn't sick before she was sent to Belsen, and she wasn't, then it doesn't matter in the decision to send her there.

Westerbork is irrelevant, she was still sent to Auschwitz and then to Bergen-Belsen.

That's not how Westerbork worked.

And I note you dodged the fact that she was curiously transported all the way to Auschwitz first, obviously deemed unable to work otherwise they would have put her to work, and then transited out of Auschwitz.

You're begging the question. She was deemed suitable for work or she wouldn't have been sent to Belsen.

You must think the Germans were just sending Anne Frank on a purposeless, all expenses paid trip to Auschwitz, but then said 'oh, what heck', let's send her back to Belsen just for laughs'.

See above. She was sent for labor. So was her sister and many other Jews from the Netherlands.

No amount of spin can change your lack of logic.

No spin needed. I have facts.

I also note you dodged the forgeries exposed in here so called 'diary'.

She was obviously sick when she entered Auschwitz or she would have been put to work, which she wasn't.

Your Westerbork reply was incoherent.

Again, Belsen had a womens hospital for sick Jews.

If Anne Frank was selected for labor at Auschwitz then why was she sent back to Belsen? Answer, she was rejected for labor, which means she would have been gassed per the impossible narrative.

You have produced no proof that a sick Anne Frank ever worked. Please do so.

You dodged the handwriting samples, why?

Your story doesn't add up.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

Hannover wrote:I see no reference to Belsen for "Schuhkommando", only Sachsenhausen.

Look at Bellinger's article on Belsen, then.

Belsen had a womens hospital for sick jews.

She was obviously sick when she entered Auschwitz or she would have been put to work, which she wasn't.

You''re wrong on two counts here. First, if she was sick when she entered Auschwitz, she would have been gassed. Second, even supposing she wouldn't have been gassed, she would instead have been put in sick bay at Auschwitz. It would have been an enormous risk to other laborers to send a sick woman to Belsen on a train.

Your Westerbork reply was incoherent.

Selection was not done at Westerbork. It was done at Auschwitz.

Again, Belsen had a womens hospital for sick Jews.

Your point being?

If Anne Frank was selected for labor at Auschwitz then why was she sent back to Belsen? Answer, she was rejected for labor, which means she would have been gassed per the impossible narrative.

Exactly the opposite is true.

You have produced no proof that a sick Anne Frank ever worked. Please do so.

Simple. She was sent to Belsen to work. That's why she was sent there. Your claim that she was sent to Belsen because she was sick means that they were willing to have a whole train of Jews get typhus.

Bellinger? A revisionist author who like so many has debunked the impossible 'gas chambers'? Now you are grasping.

You say Anne Frank would have been gassed. Yes, that would have been true IF the impossible storyline was fact. It is not.

You posted your fantasy claims of 'gassings'. Now please tell us very specifically, technically how those 'gassing' were done and show us the excavations of the alleged mass graves at Auschwitz. No more dodging.

Who says Anne Frank was diagnosed with typhus at Auschwitz? Not me. There are other ailments other than typhus.She would not have necessarily been ill due to typhus at Auschwitz, but we know she was rejected for labor because she was transited out of Auschwitz.

Your position that the Germans wasted valuable resources & time in sending her to work at labor deprived Auschwitz only to turn her around and send her to work in Belsen is simply illogical.

You are using Westerbork as a distraction, it has no bearing here. You are being incoherent.

Indeed, Belsen had a women's hospital, useful for a feeble Anne Frank who later contracted typhus.

You provided no proof that Anne Frank worked in either Auschwitz or Belsen, now please do. No dodging.

Why do you find the handwriting samples "unconvincing"? Be specific, no dodging here.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

In March 1944, part of the [Belsen] camp was redesignated as an Erholungslager ("recovery camp"),[11] where prisoners too sick to work were brought from other concentration camps. Supposedly, they were in Belsen to recover and then to return to their original camps, and to resume work; but many of them died in Belsen of disease, starvation, exhaustion and lack of medical attention.[12]

-Wikipedia

My question is that if Frank arrived at Belsen in November 1944 and had been transported from auschwitz, the scene of the greatest crime in the history of mankind, why?

Why would they honestly want anyone to have left Auschwitz and tell the story of the place?

What work could really have been improved by the attendance of Frank? Shoe sorting honestly doesn't need her skills. And by that time in the chronology of the war how much work was actually being done by the inmates?

It doesn't make sense now and never did, despite what people like Andrew PHD says.

'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

borjastick wrote:Why would they honestly want anyone to have left Auschwitz and tell the story of the place?

One of the stronger arguments that something is wrong with the orthodox version of Auschwitz is the numbers who left: transferred to other camps, released and a fair number of escapees. Sorry no figures to hand but there were plenty of them.

What work could really have been improved by the attendance of Frank? Shoe sorting honestly doesn't need her skills. And by that time in the chronology of the war how much work was actually being done by the inmates?.

Towards the end the Germans were desperate for all the labour they could get.

Quoting Wikipedia (The Jewish Bulletin Board) in regard to The Industry, that's scary! To be perfectly honest I'm having a bit of trouble trying to understand the objective of this thread, what is everyone locking horns about? Everyone is in agreement that she wasn't murdered, that she left Auschwitz and she died of typhus. So, where is the problem arising?

Turpitz wrote:Quoting Wikipedia (The Jewish Bulletin Board) in regard to The Industry, that's scary! To be perfectly honest I'm having a bit of trouble trying to understand the objective of this thread, what is everyone locking horns about? Everyone is in agreement that she wasn't murdered, that she left Auschwitz and she died of typhus. So, where is the problem arising?

In essence the issues are:- Those like Thames Darwin will not accept the obviously forged nature of the Anne Frank diary in spite of the proof that it was forged.- Those like Thames Darwin rationalize the fact that since she was not gassed at Auschwitz she was deemed an important laborer to be sent to Belsen. That makes no sense since if she would have been acceptable for labor she would certainly have been kept at labor deprived Auschwitz, which is where she was sent initially. 'holocaust' promoters like Thames Darwin say that she was first sent all the way to Auschwitz and then ridiculously turned around and sent all the way back to work at Belsen. Obviously she was deemed unfit for labor at Auschwitz for one reason or another, hence she was sent out of Auschwitz.- Since she was obviously rejected for labor at Auschwitz we must recall the official storyline that claims that all those that couldn't work were gassed, which she obviously was not. Therefore another gaping hole in the impossible 'holocaust' gassings claims. Re-read the thread for the details

I hope that helps.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

Well, evidence for The Industry is in very short supply. In fact, it's almost as hard to find as amateur footage of these recent, so-called, 'terrorist attacks'. So, you must understand the necessity in trying to fight tooth and nail for anything that might back up the far fetched fairy tales. It is hard to reconcile with the fact that Frank wasn't murdered and went through Auschwitz. Trying, obstinately, to alter those facts, which do not quite fit in with the official narrative is always going to end up getting a touch messy, as we can see from PHDs babble above. I think we should all accept the fact the action of the allies, with their terror bombing was the main ingredient to her untimely demise. Then we should all relax with a nice cup of tea.

I can't give chapter and verse on this without a longish google search but if anyone wants to bring the info that's fine.

I don't think it can be argued that the diary is "obviously forged" and anyone doing so needs to bring their evidence rather than just expect everyone to accept it on their sayso, in the same way as the supporters of its veracity must. The current official version is that she revised what she wrote and polished it in 1944 and that her father compiled the published version from the two that she wrote.

I have seen samples of the original and revised versions but I don't have them to hand. I have also seen manuscript samples. She apparently had two distinct handwriting styles, one childish and one adult. I believe she switched styles from page to page rather than the adult style being only in the 1944 revised version. The differences between the two styles are huge but I am not sure how far that discredits the idea. When we are in our teens we do swing from childish to adult behaviour.

So did she write it? Did she write some of it? Or did her father write the lot? I don't think we have conclusive evidence one way or another. It is sure though that the diary can tell us nothing about the Holocaust since clearly it stopped before she was deported and it is equally sure that Anne Frank's and her family and companions' subsequent history does not support in any way the orthodox extermination narrative.

I don't think it can be argued that the diary is "obviously forged" and anyone doing so needs to bring their evidence rather than just expect everyone to accept it on their sayso, in the same way as the supporters of its veracity must. The current official version is that she revised what she wrote and polished it in 1944 and that her father compiled the published version from the two that she wrote.

Citing the official website's tortured spin is certainly not convincing evidence of anything except vested profit interests just 'saying so'.

Imagine in a real court of law where an attorney claims, 'look here, we have her diary saying this & this'; but then the opposing attorney brings up the fact of different handwriting, a ball point pen, multiple versions, conflicting content, and the 'officially' admitted fact that someone other than the alleged author 'contributed' to the diary. The whole preposterous affair would be laughed out of court.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

About the proofs of authenticity given by the Anne Frank Foundation, there are some remarks on our topic "Anne Frank's Diary. Providential proofs of authenticity" : viewtopic.php?t=1802

There was a strange Suijk affair. According to Wikipedia : "Cornelis Suijk—a former director of the Anne Frank Foundation and president of the U.S. Center for Holocaust Education Foundation—announced in 1999 that he was in the possession of five pages that had been removed by Otto Frank from the diary prior to publication; Suijk claimed that Otto Frank gave these pages to him shortly before his death in 1980. The missing diary entries contain critical remarks by Anne Frank about her parents' strained marriage and discuss Frank's lack of affection for her mother.[69] Some controversy ensued when Suijk claimed publishing rights over the five pages; he intended to sell them to raise money for his foundation. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, the formal owner of the manuscript, demanded the pages be handed over. In 2000 the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science agreed to donate US$300,000 to Suijk's Foundation, and the pages were returned in 2001. Since then, they have been included in new editions of the diary." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank )If I'm not wrong, the sheets sold by Suijs are not numberd, while the other loose sheets are, with the same handwriting as the text of the sheets (if I'm not wrong). For me, this affair smells like blackmail : Suijs sent the message "I can reveal by what hand the diary was written." The man who extorted US$300,000 for a piece of paper allegedly entrusted to him by Otto Frank was certainly not very scrupulous.

A detail : Felderer noted a case where there are (in two different editions) two different photographs of the same signature of Anne Frank. Look at figures 5 and 14 here : http://www.radioislam.org/annefrank/figures.htmAnd according to the "critical" edition, Anne Frank wrote this passage only once. Curiously disrespectful towards the memory of Anne, this "improvement" of her signature.R.

Thanks for the links, Hannover. I have in fact read both Faurisson and Felderer but some time ago. As I recall it, they both had some strong arguments but not necessarily totally destructive of the standard story. I have an open mind on this one. As I recall (again!) Faurisson thinks the total story of them hiding is not possible. I'm not so sure of that given the geography of the place. In fact I have read that it was not uncommon for Jews or others avoiding deportation to go into hiding in these rear annexes. At least some of the staff of the business must have been complicit, though.

One thing that Felderer wrote that I found interesting at the time was her writing about staying up to see the full moon, but seeming to get the date wrong "over the holiday" (Jewish Pentecost), but if she did indeed polish the story later that error is of less significance. It was, however in May 1944 so she didn't have much time to "polish" it

An alternative interpretation I read, though again I can't source it, is that they were not really hiding in the annexe but moved there to guard the premises and stock against burglary. Their spices would be worth serious money on the black market.

Of course, the other side won't submit their documents to scrutiny by "Holocaust Deniers".

Was in Amsterdam this summer and walked past the house. Wouldn't dream of paying them to go in even if the queue hadn't been round the block. Did my token bit to sow doubt by telling a couple of people in the queue "Her father wrote it" and moved quickly on.

I don't believe Anne Frank's death is credible. If there were thousands of Auschwitz typhus deaths while she was there, she would have been at a high risk of getting ill because of her frail immune system. It just makes no sense she could have gotten it at Bergen Belsen. She either survived Bergen Belsen, or was sent to Theresienstadt, or she died in Auschwitz and Otto Frank found out after liberation.